Committee chairman Jack Cunningham

A row has flared between members of the joint committee on reform of the House of Lords.

In a rare move, nine of the 21 MPs and peers have come together to publish a minority statement saying that the official report is too timid and too soft on the government.

The majority, led by committee chairman and former Labour Cabinet minister Jack Cunningham, are calling for more time for the group to complete their deliberations.

Introducing the report on Friday, Cunningham said that decisions on issues such as the number of members the upper house should have, how they are chosen and how long they stay would all benefit from further consideration.

However the dissident cross-party group, led by Liberal Democrat MP Paul Tyler, believe Cunningham is helping the government kick the issue into the long grass and pave the way for an entirely appointed second chamber.

In February MPs chose to reject all of the joint committee's options for reform on offer to them in a series of votes.

The committee then returned to work to consider the future of the process with the result being seen as a victory for ministers who have no interest in opening the Pandora's Box of constitutional change.

Sources suggest that the government will now legislate to remove the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the Lords, leaving an entirely appointed body, mirroring the option favoured by the prime minister and lord chancellor.

The minority nine, including former Conservative leader William Hague, former Tory chancellor Ken Clarke and former Labour minister Joyce Quin, said this would be the worst of all worlds.

"Since the House of Commons rejected the option of a fully appointed second chamber by a large majority it would be absurd and unacceptable to introduce legislation which would have that effect," they said.

Cunningham called for a response from ministers within two months, taking the process into July and the start of the summer recess.

Critics feel this is the start of a new delaying process that will keep the issue on the back burner while the government concentrates on other priorities.

The prime ministerial ally is thought to want to take the heat out of the issue and allow for a considered response to the votes.

Cunningham told reporters that far from delaying progress he was keen to see the drive towards democracy continued.

"Despite the lack of a majority in the Commons for any one option, the joint committee hopes that the momentum for reform can be regained," he said.

"There are widely differing views within the committee as to the best composition for a reformed second chamber, but one thing we all agree on is that things should not be left as they are."

The future of the committee itself has been thrown into doubt by the row.

While both groups now say the onus is on the government to decide on the next move, Tyler believes the committee can do no more.

"In these circumstances we believe that the joint committee cannot continue to meet without a fresh mandate based on an indication by government of its preferred route to achieve a 'more representative and democratic' House of Lords, and a subsequent debate in parliament," the rebels said in a statement.

Cunningham, though, wants "a steer from the government, and then from the two Houses, so that we can be confident that further work undertaken by the committee will lead to action".

Speaking to ePolitix.com, Tyler said that the report should have been firmer with ministers over their intentions.

"We [the minority] feel the emphasis and tone of the majority report is not sufficient," he said.

"The absolutely critical issue is that this should not be kicked into the long grass."

No more work can be done by the joint committee without a lead from the government, the North Cornwall MP believes.

"We are kicking this back to the government," he said.

"The key issue is whether they are going to fulfil their manifesto promises to make the upper house more accountable and democratic."

Creating a fully appointed house would be to do exactly what MPs had "decisively rejected", he said, making a mockery of claims from those against elected peers that the Commons should be predominant.

"The government might legislate but in a way that is so limited that it would be worse than useless," Tyler argued.

"I'm not over-optimistic but we feel the onus is on the government to provide a lead."